Olympiad Goals

[Clement Sreeves]

Open team: In order to measure success you first need to have targets. What are the objectives of Scotland at the Olympiad?

...

For the life of me I can't figure out if there is a clear goal. Please help.

I have no complaints with the teams selected. However nobody has really answered Alan's original question. Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?

[George Murphy]

Hmmm… Is this discussion correctly focussed? All in all, it seems too aspirational, hinging on “what’s in it for me?”

However much we may admire and respect them, top players are not the be-all and end-all of Chess Scotland.

The Chess Scotland Adult Selection Policy September 2007 contains this statement: “There may be occasions when not sending an individual or a team to a representative event is in the best interests of Chess Scotland”. I can readily understand and endorse omitting an individual. But, not send a team? How could this be? The only practical hurdle I can imagine might be too few candidates to make up a Ladies Team, but not send an Open or Men’s Team? Surely not! No funds? Unavailability of top players? Representing Scotland is such an honour, there would be a queue of candidates prepared to fund their own way if necessary. The selectors’ job would be to winnow them down. Resulting team would be too weak to do us “justice”?

The fundamental point of taking part in an Olympiad is to be there. To represent Scotland. That is the objective to focus on. Everything after that is ancillary. Of course, we want “our boys” and “girls” to do their best and fly our flag high. But, first and foremost, take up our place alongside other FIDE member states.

“… nobody has really answered Alan's original question. Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?

With respect, I think Alan Tate and Clement Sreeves are missing the (pragmatic) point and edging into idealism. “Value” is such an open-ended and subjective concept that it is difficult to pin down.

On the whole, I think our selectors do a good job albeit a thankless one. The inference - if that is what it is - that they form a self-serving, introspective ring is wide of the mark. The very existence of this thread attests to that.

[Andrew Greet]

2. Andrew G says he finds it unsettling that it's not ok to not play.

Quit twisting my words; I said nothing of the sort.

I find most of the views here backward, negative, or with agenda...

There's only one person who is blatantly pushing their own agenda here. Alan plays a lot of tournaments but missed out on selection this year. I believe he would like nothing more than to see a ruling put in place which might conveniently disqualify a few of the players who would ordinarily be chosen ahead of him on rating and consistency of results.

I restrained myself from pointing this out in my previous post as I didn't want the discussion to become too personal, but to see Alan, of all people, talk about others having an agenda is too much. Alan, you clearly have the ability to make the team when playing at your best, so I suggest that you focus on improving your own game and results. Leaving the discussion to prepare for your next tournament has been the most useful thing you've contributed to this thread so far.

[andyburnett]

Some very good posts recently from Walter, Craig and George but I'm going to start by answering Clement's question...

Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?

Value is not something easily quantifiable as George stated. The reason we fund Olympiad (and Euro) teams is that Scotland simply has to be represented on the international stage. There are a number of reasons for this, not least that we are an independent body from the UK when it comes to chess (and other sports) and need to ensure it stays that way.

If we were to rely solely on outside funding to ensure our teams can play, we would struggle to be 100% sure of participation. However...I plan to do my best to find sponsorship for our national adult teams, which would release CS adult funds for other objectives (helping norm seekers, senior participation, training seminars for adults, etc).

With regard to the selection process, I simply do not believe that anyone should just be able walk into a national team having not played since the previous season or longer. There are many reasons for not playing/not being able to play - but Olympiad spots should be earned, just like the 2300+ player has to earn their right to join the stronger players in that team. Play, improve (or try to!), show some form of dedication and then be rewarded by representing your country - which other sport or game wouldn't take this approach??

For those who have been inactive, the 'Canadian approach' would give them an opportunity to gain a spot:
-National champion
-3 spots chosen by selectors based rating/activity/whatever scale if we decide on one
-one wildcard chosen by selectors (which, if an inactive player, should also include a commitment to playing seriously before the event)

On this wildcard point, a little story. The Czech federation chose a young IM as their 5th board for Baku, and there was a lot of resentment/argument about this choice (the Czechs have dozens of strong GM players to choose from). He decided to prove his worth by playing a few weeks before Baku, scoring a GM norm in the process - and then went on to score a 2651 performance in Baku!

This is the kind of commitment I would like to see from our selected players (within reason of course - Czech has many tournaments to offer, but also the player in question is a student not a professional).

If 'improvement' of our teams' performances required 10 extra 'steps', selection/selection criteria would only be one of them, and perhaps( or probably) not the most important,

Pre-tournament training sessions, for example. On here and in private conversations I am being told players prefer their own methods. Fine, but are they working? Well, our teams performed well recently in Baku - but again, we are looking to improve are we not? Perhaps we need such sessions to focus on these big events - to give our players an edge when they get there, to improve the individuals training approach?

Such things need not cost the earth, and if private sponsorship of Olympiad costs can be found then there would be money in the kitty for such sessions, even training matches.

Ok, time for me to do some proper work (if writing about poker can be deemed work ) but please do keep the discussion alive - and as friendly as possible. Nobody here wants anything other than Scotland's teams and players to do the best they can. We did this in Baku, but let's see if we can find a way to make things even better!

[andyburnett]

Oh dear, guess I'm too slow at typing :/

[Alastair White]

I have a radical suggestion.

The International Director should choose a board of selectors from the most qualified candidates, i.e the best available from those experienced and respected players who have been there and done it, are willing to take on such a difficult and thankless role, and are not making themselves available for selection themselves.

Those selectors should then pick the players (from those eligible and available to play) who they believe will do the best job of representing Scotland. They should not be too bound by artificial constraints of ranking, games played, personalities or complex formulae. They should use their judgement to select the best team for the given circumstances.

Regardless of the result, we should all be aware that everyone concerned (selectors and players) have tried to do their best.

[Clement Sreeves]

Of course there are good reasons why Scotland should send a team to the Olympiad, but there are good reasons to do lots of other things too. I don't see yet why subsidising the players is the best use of funds. Does anyone really care whether we finish 40th or 100th? As George has said there will always be players willing to pay their own way, ensuring we are represented.

Chess in Scotland is in decline at club level. The pyramid needs to be built from the bottom. Spending money on top players and norm seekers etc may have short term results but an extra IM here or there will not reverse the fundamental problem. If you have more players participating and a good structure, the titled players will follow.

[andyburnett]

OK Clement, you have an international budget of, say. £3000-4000 each year (optimistic) which is for adult and senior chess. Explain to me how you would use this please..? Feel free to give it away to other areas, but you'll have to justify it!

[George Neave]

I have a radical suggestion.

The International Director should choose a board of selectors from the most qualified candidates, i.e the best available from those experienced and respected players who have been there and done it, are willing to take on such a difficult and thankless role, and are not making themselves available for selection themselves.

Those selectors should then pick the players (from those eligible and available to play) who they believe will do the best job of representing Scotland. They should not be too bound by artificial constraints of ranking, games played, personalities or complex formulae. They should use their judgement to select the best team for the given circumstances.

Regardless of the result, we should all be aware that everyone concerned (selectors and players) have tried to do their best.

Err...this is exactly what happens now. Is this meant to be sarcastic?

[andyburnett]

I have a radical suggestion.

The International Director should choose a board of selectors from the most qualified candidates, i.e the best available from those experienced and respected players who have been there and done it, are willing to take on such a difficult and thankless role, and are not making themselves available for selection themselves.

Those selectors should then pick the players (from those eligible and available to play) who they believe will do the best job of representing Scotland. They should not be too bound by artificial constraints of ranking, games played, personalities or complex formulae. They should use their judgement to select the best team for the given circumstances.

Regardless of the result, we should all be aware that everyone concerned (selectors and players) have tried to do their best.

Err...this is exactly what happens now. Is this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm pretty sure it was George!